turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Forum:Edward IX in T2G
Anticipating that Supervolcano (SV) could very well have our Charles on the British throne, I dug out my copy of T2G last night and began scanning pages, looking for clues as to who that Charles III is supposed to be. In my search, I came across a throw away line about Edward IX. So, no, Charles III in T2G is most probably NOT our Prince Charles. Also, the line about Edward IX does not provide near enough information about the man to justify an article, either. (It's something to the effect that a building looked like it hadn't been painted since Edward IX's reign.) He may be described in further detail later in the book. But for now I think I'll add him to the Monarch of the United Kingdom and treat him in much the same way we treated the Emperor of Mexico (Southern Victory). TR 15:56, October 5, 2011 (UTC) ::As far as I recall, that throw-away line was the only mention. Not knowing off the top of my head how many King Edwards there have been, the number "IX" didn't register any significance to me. Good catch. ML4E 21:12, October 5, 2011 (UTC) :I see what you did. It's worth pointing out that Edward VIII had no children. Had he never abdicated, Elizabeth would have succeeded him (thus still making Charles Prince of Wales), she just would have done so much later than she succeeded George VI in OTL. :We could butterfly him into having a son--Maybe he married a more fertile woman (and a less scandalous one, allowing him to avoid the abdication crisis), or maybe it's another Edward VIII altogether; Edward has a long and proud (though the most recent one certainly tarnished it a bit) history as a name in the various English/British royal families, so it's not at all difficult to imagine an altogether different prince being born and named Edward. :If it's the historical Edward VIII's son . . . Well, Edward VIII died a mere twenty-three years before the setting of T2G; even if Edward IX had a reign that was much shorter than the average, it's still not that great a span of time. If I said "It looks like X hasn't happened since Bush the Elder was President," would you say "Damn!! That long??" Certainly if we were talking about something that's supposed to be done frequently, like cleaning out a fridge or upgrading a computer, but painting a building seems more debatable. :Anyway, what I'm driving at is, could Edward IX actually be the man we know as Edward VIII, or the analog thereof, with the seventh and eighth Edwards having served earlier? We've got 219 years of alternate timeline in which some member of the royal family could have married differently or had a son instead of a daughter or died an untimely death or what have you. Turtle Fan 19:47, October 5, 2011 (UTC) ::Except Richard Nixon, used Steamer salesman, Governor-General MLK and Independence advocate JFK suggests this timeline doesn't work that way. ML4E 21:12, October 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::Those are all historical figures. There's no historical prince who could be Edward IX. And Elizabeth is not the monarch, so it's clear that HT and Dreyfuss were playing fast and loose with the succession. Given that the POD is 1776, it seems quite arbitrary to say "Everything must have been the same up till 1936; then everything must have changed." Turtle Fan 01:34, October 6, 2011 (UTC) :::On the other hand, Martin Roosevelt suggests that it can. Sometimes. When the authors got bored. TR 23:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC) :::Also a Queen Victoria somewhere along the line. Hard to say for sure what the authors intended but the line of succession seems to follow OTL for quite some time. ML4E 00:15, October 7, 2011 (UTC) ::::It changed somewhere, since Elizabeth is not Queen or Queen-Empress or whatever the title is, and Victoria as the most recent monarch still gives us the whole twentieth century to play with, more--possibly a great deal more--if we admit the possibility of her dying earlier than in OTL. At any rate, the case for this non-existent person being the hypothetical son of a childless historical figure strikes me as being far weaker than the case that Charles III is Prince Charles, or that Henry IX in ItPoME is Prince Harry--both of whom are historical figures very high up in the line of succession as it stands now and who would also be very high up in the line of succession had Edward VIII not abdicated. Turtle Fan 01:58, October 7, 2011 (UTC) :::::I think you emphasize the fact that Edward VIII was childless a bit too much, especially when we remember that 1) it takes two to make a baby and, 2) in OTL, the second half of that partnership was married THRICE and never ever had a child. ::::::It's certainly possible, but by no means assured. Turtle Fan 17:37, October 7, 2011 (UTC) :::::I would submit that D&T would have done the same research and could have reached the conclusion that Wallis was the infertile one, and since that relationship is off the table, yes, a fictional heir is possible. ::::::I've also heard it speculated that Edward may have reordered the line of succession had he remained both regnant and childless into his old age to place Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood, next in line. By all accounts, she was the sibling with whom Edward was closest. She had two sons. There names were George and Gerald but that's not hard to change. :::::In OTL he would have needed the unanimous consent of the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, and South African Parliaments to do so during the war years, and more besides if he tried it later on in life. In a timeline with a POD set before the Commonwealth was set up, or for that matter a timeline like ItPoME where the UK becomes occupied by the Nazis and the other Commonwealth countries remain independent and Allied (initially, anyway), who knows. Turtle Fan 17:37, October 7, 2011 (UTC) :::::However, as you point out, TF, it is within the realm of possiblity that the line changed much earlier. I suppose it's quite possible that Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, didn't die in 1891 of the flu, and ascended rather than George V. I have no evidence for this, but since we know Albert and Victoria were still basically Albert and Victoria, given HT tropes, it is reasonable to assume they still produced the same issue. ::::::There are too many points where the line could potentially branch off for us to say with certainty "Here's where it happened." Turtle Fan 17:37, October 7, 2011 (UTC) :::::Of the two, I lean towards the first option since there is at least circumstantial evidence for it, however thin. The second I just pulled out of the air. TR 15:03, October 7, 2011 (UTC) ::::::The circumstantial evidence for the first option is weaker than the circumstantial evidence that Prince Harry is Henry IX in ItPoME. :::::::No it isn't. We have a man named Edward IX and a man Edward VIII. Given the time frame, it seems reasonable that 9 followed 8. We don't have any indication that Elizabeth II exists, but we do know no one by that name reigned. We have clues that George VI never sat upon the throne. Herego, it seems likely that Ed 9 is somehow descended from Ed 8. ::::::::We know no one named Elizabeth is reigning in 1995. We have evidence of her sons existing; it would be quite a trick for them to exist without her. We may not have hard confirmation that they are her sons, but they're hinted to be analogs thereof, hints comparable to those which have justified the creations of the Margaret Thatcher article and the Andrew Jackson article. Turtle Fan 00:37, October 8, 2011 (UTC) :::::::The evidence that Henry IX is our Prince Harry consists of the fact that they have the same first name, and that their lifespans overlap. There is absolutely nothing else that connects the two. TR 17:54, October 7, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::That and the fact that drawing the line of succession from Edward VIII based on OTL geneology would put Harry as close to the throne as he is in this timeline. You said above that a different wife might give him his own descendants, but he was already married to Wallis in the ItPoME POD, and had already proven that he was more interested in being married to her than he was in being king. Also there's now a tradition of the BUF reordering the line of succession to give themselves the brother they liked, so while I can't think of any reason Harry would necessarily be more desirable to them than William, the precedent is there. ::::::::::This line of thought should also take into consideration that the Germans were not above blowing the shit out of the Brits whenever the Brits staged an uprising right into the 1970s. A few bombs could easily have changed the line of succession. TR 01:20, October 8, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::At the same time, the oldest son of the oldest son of the Countess of Harewood (see above) is named David Henry George Lascelles. There's never been a King David in Britain, and it's not a very British-sounding name, so that could be his incentive for changing his reigning name. Turtle Fan 00:37, October 8, 2011 (UTC) ::::::It's no stronger than the case for calling Charles XI of France in TL-191 Charles Maurras, or for calling Maximilian II Agustin de Hapsburg-Iturbide y Greene (both of whom actually existed, leaving no room to doubt their parents' fertility. Well, it's a bit more complicated than that in Agustin's case, but you know what I mean.) The fact that the veiled references to Charles, Diana, Andrew and Fergie are followed with "Good thing that's only a cadet branch" does seem to contradict fairly definitively suggestions that Charles III is the incumbent Prince of Wales. Yet of Edward IX we say "Presumably, he is the son of Edward VIII." That's a phrasing that admits very little in the way of alterhate interpretation. Can't we at least phrase it similarly to Maximilian II on the Emperors of Mexico page: "This person may have been the historical Agustin de Iturbide y Greene, the adoptive son of Maximilian I, but Turtledove never addresses the issue"? Turtle Fan 17:37, October 7, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::Yes. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? 17:54, October 7, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Because when one of us opens a forum it's usually an invitation to a thorough, civil discussion of a given question on which we want the other admins' input, in light of the policies we've all formed. Chief among these is a speculation policy which has many times in the past stayed our hands in favoring one conclusion when the textual nevidence supports several. Isn't that what you wanted? Turtle Fan 00:37, October 8, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::Of course, but sometimes, when the easiet solution is what we finally arrived at, the civil discourse can be had in less the time. TR 01:20, October 8, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::Sometimes. At other times all the info must be laid out before a recommendation can be formed. Turtle Fan 12:52, October 8, 2011 (UTC)